|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Supreme Court Limits Time Period for Filing Pay Discrimination Charges (pdf).Vedder Price - August 31, 2007 Before bringing a discrimination lawsuit against an
employer, employees must fi le a charge with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
within 180 days from the date of the alleged
discrimination (300 days if the employee is fi ling
a charge for a violation of both federal and state or
local antidiscrimination laws). Report Link Go Goodyear.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - July 13, 2007 In May, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to exempt an employee challenging her former employer’s pay decisions as discriminatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from the Act’s 180-day time limit for filing a charge of discrimination (subject to an extension of up to 300 days in deferral states) with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (or an equivalent state agency). Report Link Supreme Court Limits Title VII Pay Discrimination Cases (pdf).Nexsen Pruet - July 11, 2007 On May 29, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 limits the damages an employee can recover when isolated disriminatory acts from the distant past result in disparity in the employee's current level of pay. Report Link Slender Sup. Ct. Majority Promotes Certainty In Incentive Pay Plans.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - June 25, 2007 Like many employers, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. based its employees' salary at least partially on the performance reviews of supervisors and managers to whom employees report. Better performance reviews were rewarded with corresponding pay raises. Report Link When to Reset the Clock: Supreme Court Rejects the “Paycheck Accrual Rule” and Limits Employee’s Right to Sue.Helms Mulliss & Wicker - June 04, 2007 In this edition of WORKCITE, Brian Barger reviews the recent pay discrimination decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. regarding When to Reset the Clock: Supreme Court Rejects the “Paycheck Accrual Rule” and Limits Employee’s Right to Sue. Report Link Supreme Court Limits Employer Exposure to Discriminatory Pay Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 04, 2007 In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has held that an employer's determination setting an employee's wages, and not the mere issuance of a paycheck based on that decision, triggers Title VII's deadline to file an administrative charge based on discriminatory pay. Report Link Supreme Court Limits Title VII Suits.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - June 01, 2007 In a decision announced Tuesday, May 29, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the time period in which employees can challenge pay discrimination under Title VII. Specifically, the Court held that Title VII’s deadlines, which require discrimination complaints to be filed as soon as 180 days after a discriminatory act occurs, preclude employees from bringing a suit on a salary decision made beyond the 180-day period, even if the past decision lowers the employee’s current salary. Report Link Supreme Court Protects Employers From Stale Pay Discrimination Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 31, 2007 The Supreme Court's May 29 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear (No.05-1074) provides critical protection to employers against stale discrimination claims based on events long past. Title VII sets short deadlines for bringing discrimination claims. The Court held that with pay discrimination claims, as with other kinds of discrimination claims, the deadline for filing the claim is measured from the date of the allegedly discriminatory pay decision – in this case, negative performance evaluations many years earlier that had limited the employee's pay raises at those times. Report Link The Real Lessons of Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire and Rubber CoLittler Mendelson, P.C. - May 31, 2007 On May 29, 2007, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., limiting the potential liability of employers for pay discrimination under Title VII. The fact pattern it considered is rather common, which is one reason why this case is so important. Suppose that during the 1980s, a female employee was paid less than comparable males working for the same employer. Thereafter, the female employee and these male employees receive the same pay raises, but because the salary paid to the female employee was initially lower, she continues throughout the 1990s to earn less in each year than her male counterparts. Report Link Supreme Court Requires Timely Challenge To Pay DecisionsOgletree Deakins - May 31, 2007 In a sweeping decision, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, split along ideological lines, ruled today that Title VII plaintiffs must timely challenge particular pay decisions and cannot rely on the continuing violation theory to reach back to allegedly discriminatory decisions made before the charge filing period established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 05-1074, U.S. Supreme Court (May 29, 2007). Report Link U.S. Supreme Court Limits Ability to Sue Over Past Pay Discrimination (pdf).Phelps Dunbar LLP - May 30, 2007 In a 5-4 ruling, the United States Supreme Court today
limited employees’ ability to sue employers for pay
discrimination resulting from decisions made years earlier.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. The case focused on
the 180-day deadline that employees have for complaining
about alleged discriminatory employment decisions under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Report Link Supreme Court: Federal Four-Year Limitations Statute Applies to Suit Under 1991 Civil Rights Act.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 14, 2004 A unanimous U. S. Supreme Court has ruled a four-year statute of limitations applies to a class action lawsuit alleging wrongful discharge, hostile work environment, and refusal to transfer in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Report Link What Hath Morgan Wrought? The New Law of Continuing Violations.Hogan & Hartson LLP - January 31, 2003 The notion of a "continuing violation" allows employment discrimination claims that would otherwise be untimely to proceed to trial. That doctrine was given a major new interpretation in June 2002 by the Supreme Court in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan. Report Link Sexual Harassment Suit Barred by Time Limitation in Job Application.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - December 01, 2002 The Daimler Chrysler employment application had a statement obligating the employee to bring employment claims within six months and she did not adhere to this time limit. Report Link Business Update: Supreme Court Considers The Continuing Violation Doctrine: Mixed News For Employers.Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP - June 21, 2002 The Morgan decision provides some answers, but by no means resolves the ambiguity surrounding the doctrine. The decision brings mixed news for employers. Report Link Continuing Violation Theory Overrides Time Limit for Filing Hostile Environment Charges under Title VII.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 12, 2002 In National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, the Court was asked to decide the limits of the "continuing violation" doctrine under federal anti-discrimination law. Report Link Statute of Limitations Expanded For Hostile Environment Cases.Winston & Strawn - June 10, 2002 A charge alleging hostile work environment, however, is not time-barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same alleged unlawful practice and one of the acts falls within the filing period. Report Link A. Continuing Violation May Result Where Employer Maintains Potentially Discriminatory Policy.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - November 30, 2001 Discusses California Dept. of Youth Authority, No. 99-17140 (9th Cir. November 14, 2001), in which the court reversed summary judgment in favor of the California Dept of Youth Authority in a disability discrimination/failure to hire case, in a potentially far-reaching extension of the continuing violations doctrine.
|
Employment Law Seminars
UNDERSTANDING YOUR ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES AT WORK (AB 1234 COMPLIANCE)
Sacramento
May 13, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPPreventing Wage/Hour Class Actions.Online
May 13, 2008 LittlerHOW TO CONDUCT EFFECTIVE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONSSacramento
May 13, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPHow to Stay Union FreeLas Vegas
2008-5-13 Jackson Lewis LLPConducting Effective Investigations of Employment Claims: Essential Skills for Internal InvestigatorsHouston
May 13, 2008 Littler2008 Public Sexual Harassment Training for supervisors and managers.Universal City
May 13, 2008 Ballard RosenbergSHRM Morris County Monthly Legal UpdateFlorham Park
2008-5-14 SHRM Morris County ChapterThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActHartford
2008-5-14 Jackson Lewis LLPDigital Dangers: Recent E-Discovery Developments and TrendsLas Vegas
May 14, 2008 LittlerHealth Care's New Labor and Privacy Law Frontiers: Defusing Tomorrow's Problems TodayDenver
May 14, 2008 Littler |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds